Ken Kantor has a different view on objective measurements. Click on the link below and download his attached .pdf file that contains a very large list of ongoing research that was going on at the time (some 5 or so years ago) in the subject area.
Towards Objective Measurements of Sound - The Kitchen - The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums
Some years ago Robert Harley wrote an article in Sterophile that attempted to describe the large glossary of subjective audio terms used by those with interest in audio. There are many there that are still unmeasureable.
Towards Objective Measurements of Sound - The Kitchen - The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums
Some years ago Robert Harley wrote an article in Sterophile that attempted to describe the large glossary of subjective audio terms used by those with interest in audio. There are many there that are still unmeasureable.
And many of these are not repeatable from one reviewer to another or under ABX conditions
Robert Harley? Stereophile? That's two strikes already. Yes I'm well familiar with their "glossary" it's a sad attempt at vindicating their own self worth and ineptness when it comes to doing an honest review. Subjective, isn't the same as measurable nor is it even close to even being real at times.
A bit of history.....
About 60 yrs ago, frequency response was among the myriad of subjective terms used prior to the development of measurement technology.
While I agree R.H. is one of the ultimate subjectivists (his mag. doesn't publish measurements), some of what he says will indeed come to pass as measurable characteristics.
Very Impressive! Yikes! Need more time to read the links.
One problem is the word Subjective.. If It dosent show up on a paper but enough experienced Listeners are hearing it, then it is the actual sound and the word subjective can be illiminated.. Problem is we will need everyone to get together for a long period in one place, including listeners and sience people and come up to speed on each one experiences..Unfortunatley the nonbelievers will be dissapointed.. My house is to small though
Until measurements become perfect I dont see another way..
Also, you cant lie because your embarrassed because your hearing something you didnt think possible previously.. This would throw off the study..
Lets add a lie detector test.. Darn, we a need measurement equipment to prove this machine is accurate...
One problem is the word Subjective.. If It dosent show up on a paper but enough experienced Listeners are hearing it, then it is the actual sound and the word subjective can be illiminated.. Problem is we will need everyone to get together for a long period in one place, including listeners and sience people and come up to speed on each one experiences..Unfortunatley the nonbelievers will be dissapointed.. My house is to small though
Until measurements become perfect I dont see another way..Also, you cant lie because your embarrassed because your hearing something you didnt think possible previously.. This would throw off the study..
Lets add a lie detector test.. Darn, we a need measurement equipment to prove this machine is accurate...
Do you mean that speakers can't reproduce it if it's there, or that stereo recordings don't contain it?
Yes there are sonic characteristic that can't be measured (accurately). Also there are sonic characteristics that can't be recorded accurately or reproduced accurately. It is immediately obvious to me when I hear live musical intruments. There is a quality present that can't be recorded or captured. It is a time and space issue and the way we perceive things. Live is uncompressed (fully lossless). Any recording or measurement is lossy and will change the quality of the sound.
Last edited:
The question was:
1. This is true.
2. I have a setup that qualifies for investigations as the measured results are as close as two independent drivers can be, but one are "destroyed" to a level where there are more audible noise / distortion than sound..
If I get time and passion I can record two audio files (mic -> ADC (384k/32bit)) and compare. This could be very interesting as traditional measurement tools tell that both the SPL and THD from 20Hz to 20kHz for both units are similar...
1. This is true.
2. I have a setup that qualifies for investigations as the measured results are as close as two independent drivers can be, but one are "destroyed" to a level where there are more audible noise / distortion than sound..
If I get time and passion I can record two audio files (mic -> ADC (384k/32bit)) and compare. This could be very interesting as traditional measurement tools tell that both the SPL and THD from 20Hz to 20kHz for both units are similar...
My problem with the "can't be measured" position is that it essentially comes down to "Audio reproduction is MAGIC".
I mean seriously.
1) We can find sub-sub-sub atomic particles that exist for essentially no time what so ever
2) Can generate, recieve and manipulate signals into gigahertz and beyond
3) Have radars that can give you a detailed picture from what are basically faint echos of radar frequencies
4) We can find planet orbiting stars hundreds and thousands of light YEARS away by nanoscopic changes in the light detected from the star and even determine what the major components of the atmosphere are.
All of these require accuracy and precision in both playback and/or detection of unimaginable magnitudes just 30-40 years ago.
Yet some how recording and playing back a simple 20-20khz signal is impossible to do accurately?
I'll grant that the physical process of reproducing sound is considerably more difficult than recording it or playing it back up to the point at which the sound frequencies are physically created. And that there are limitations to most of the devices we use currently.
Even there it is mostly a question of cost and space. You can get a 1hz fan woofer, it will just cost you $10,000 or so and require a room of it's own. There are super tweeters that will go up to 100khz, when most people can't even hear the supposed max of 20khz.
Most of the "can't be measured crowd" seem to be stuck on the sonic equivalent of Xeno's paradox.
The human ear is a marvelous thing, but we're deaf and blind compared to a lot of animals and it simply doesn't possess magical powers.
That's the domain of the human mind, which can be persuaded to believe in anything.
I mean seriously.
1) We can find sub-sub-sub atomic particles that exist for essentially no time what so ever
2) Can generate, recieve and manipulate signals into gigahertz and beyond
3) Have radars that can give you a detailed picture from what are basically faint echos of radar frequencies
4) We can find planet orbiting stars hundreds and thousands of light YEARS away by nanoscopic changes in the light detected from the star and even determine what the major components of the atmosphere are.
All of these require accuracy and precision in both playback and/or detection of unimaginable magnitudes just 30-40 years ago.
Yet some how recording and playing back a simple 20-20khz signal is impossible to do accurately?
I'll grant that the physical process of reproducing sound is considerably more difficult than recording it or playing it back up to the point at which the sound frequencies are physically created. And that there are limitations to most of the devices we use currently.
Even there it is mostly a question of cost and space. You can get a 1hz fan woofer, it will just cost you $10,000 or so and require a room of it's own. There are super tweeters that will go up to 100khz, when most people can't even hear the supposed max of 20khz.
Most of the "can't be measured crowd" seem to be stuck on the sonic equivalent of Xeno's paradox.
The human ear is a marvelous thing, but we're deaf and blind compared to a lot of animals and it simply doesn't possess magical powers.
That's the domain of the human mind, which can be persuaded to believe in anything.
Both. How can either the microphones or speakers capture imaging cues anywhere besides on a straight line between them?
Agree 100%, with the caveat that we don't fully understand what the human mind desires when it comes to audio reproduction in a room.
Yes. I think the fundamental issue in many respect may be that hearing, which for the sake of this argument I will define as your mind interpreting the signals input to it by our senses, is a distinct phenomena from the physical sound wave mechanically impacting our ear drums.
"Hearing" in the way I tend to think of it, is something that takes place entirely within the mind and that is affected by how a particular mind processes and reacts to the signals. So I can believe that two people might have very different "hearing" of the exact same audio signal and thus be unable to agree on how "good" something sounds, but the difference isn't in what the physical sound is, but how those minds react to it.
I think someone earlier in the thread also said something to the effect of "We don't necessarily understand what measurement corresponds with what characteristic of the sounds we hear is.".
Which I would agree with.
It's not Magic. Its a real Formation.
You can be influeced to hear something initialy but over time you will hear whats actualy there.. Developing more experience will let you hear whats there faster..
Since all hi end speakers are flawed I look for speakers where there is no single major flaw that sticks out so bad that you will not be able to live with it for a long time and this will make it seem positively special..
You can be influeced to hear something initialy but over time you will hear whats actualy there.. Developing more experience will let you hear whats there faster..
Since all hi end speakers are flawed I look for speakers where there is no single major flaw that sticks out so bad that you will not be able to live with it for a long time and this will make it seem positively special..
THIS ..........is why are are audio magazines that pander to the naked ape albeit rich apes
and then ( at the time)
That's the process of acquisition, like learning a tune
We went through all this over in the lounge talking about amplifiers.
Everything can be expressed by it's transfer function. Law of physics. What factors need to be included is where we run afoul and things get all subjective.
It is quite true we don't fully understand how we hear or process what we hear. That does maybe add weight to selecting one measurement or another but it does not change the list of things we can measure. It may change the subjective quality of a driver from one person to another. It won't change the driver.
We can measure the simple frequency response
We can measure pulse decay
We can measure breakup modes
We can measure simple harmonic distortion
We can measure IM distortion
We can measure compression
We can measure mechanical reflections and diffraction
We can measure non-linearaties with excursion
We can measure the effect of the reactive load of the circuit driving it
I don't think we need magic. My experience says basic frequency response and basic harmonic distortion are 99% of the game. The crossover is the other 99% of the result.
I have to agree with Joel. That is why I always recommend understanding speakers by listening to one that has for 20 or so years been doing nothing particularly wrong. The Vanderstein 2ce. Think long and hard about what you can do better.
Everything can be expressed by it's transfer function. Law of physics. What factors need to be included is where we run afoul and things get all subjective.
It is quite true we don't fully understand how we hear or process what we hear. That does maybe add weight to selecting one measurement or another but it does not change the list of things we can measure. It may change the subjective quality of a driver from one person to another. It won't change the driver.
We can measure the simple frequency response
We can measure pulse decay
We can measure breakup modes
We can measure simple harmonic distortion
We can measure IM distortion
We can measure compression
We can measure mechanical reflections and diffraction
We can measure non-linearaties with excursion
We can measure the effect of the reactive load of the circuit driving it
I don't think we need magic. My experience says basic frequency response and basic harmonic distortion are 99% of the game. The crossover is the other 99% of the result.
I have to agree with Joel. That is why I always recommend understanding speakers by listening to one that has for 20 or so years been doing nothing particularly wrong. The Vanderstein 2ce. Think long and hard about what you can do better.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.